How am I acting in the same manner, please expand. The ONLY verifiable facts of the case are that Zimmerman followed the kid, and that the kid was shot to death, and of course that the kid was not in the act of a crime. THOSE ARE THE ONLY FACTS WE HAVE.

Those are facts of this case, and I don't think anyone is denying it. However, you are ignoring other facts of the case, such as the fact that Martin attacked Zimmerman and caused physical injuries to him sometime between the end of Zimmerman's call to the 911 dispatcher and when Martin was shot. Those are also verifiable facts in this case.

Quote from: The Gawd

The rest is an attempt to justify the actions. This is what you are being willfully ignorant of. You are attempting to explain away WHY that kid never made it home. My position is, if he was not in the act of a crime himself, then it is irrelevant what excuse was given for him being shot. And I am not going to sit back and let dishonest people try to change the facts around to make this about what the victim did.

Seriously?! You think the fact that Zimmerman's face and the back of his head were bleeding nothing more than an attempts to justify his firing his gun? Because that's sure what it seems like you're saying. If he was being attacked by Travyon Martin - and those injuries go a long way towards demonstrating that he was - and if he was pinned by Trayvon Martin - which eyewitness testimony seems to corroborate - then it's a little much to call those things nothing more than attempts to justify his firing his gun.

Quote from: The Gawd

Unless you can show the kid was committing a crime you have no reasonable case. All you have is trying to turn the victim into to guilty party.

If I am being followed by someone, for whatever reason, and I get away from him (which is provable from the call to the 911 dispatcher), and then I go back and confront, then attack the person who was following me, then I just committed assault and battery, at the very least. Doesn't matter what the guy might or might not have intended to do, or whether he was armed or not.

Quote from: The Gawd

Confirmation bias? Please. The guy stalked him. Thats a fact as given by ALL parties.

No, it isn't. What Zimmerman did was not stalking under Florida law, and I suspect it would not have been considered stalking even under common law. It isn't even what you said earlier - you said that Zimmerman followed Martin, which he did. Now, maybe you're conflating the two words, but that's nobody's fault but your own.

Quote from: The Gawd

He stalked him with a LOADED PISTOL. A fact shown by the fact that the case exists.

Zimmerman had a concealed carry permit. That means he was legally permitted to carry a loaded firearm. Your attempt to 'prove' that he was stalking Martin with a loaded gun is, frankly, full of holes. Yes, he was following Martin (for a short time), and yes, he was carrying a gun, but you are trying to act like the two are linked, which they aren't.

Quote from: The Gawd

The kid has a right to defend himself against armed stalkers.

And thus you twist the facts to try to 'prove' that Zimmerman was committing a crime. The problem is, he wasn't. He was the captain of his neighborhood watch organization. It was his job to watch for people who might be committing crimes and alert the police to it, which he did in this case. He made a stupid choice in going after Martin at all, but he didn't keep chasing Martin; he stopped when requested to by the dispatcher. That blows the whole idea that he was stalking Martin out of the water.

Unless Zimmerman had Martin trapped, or unless he was actually shooting at Martin, Martin had the obligation to escape - not to attack. If you attack someone who's not attacking you, even if they happen to be armed, then it's not self-defense. It's assault and battery. Trying to retroactively justify Martin's attack on Zimmerman by the fact that Zimmerman was armed is an example of both confirmation bias and circular reasoning.

Quote from: The Gawd

The guy is a lunatic, check out his actual record. Please show me where I am wrong. When doing so, dont try to make the dead kid into the guilty party. Its classless.

I'm getting more than a little tired of this "don't make the dead kid into the guilty party" line you keep dishing out. Because I'm not making him into the guilty party. I'm saying that they both made stupid choices, and Martin was killed as a result. I realize that's not what you want to hear - you want people to acknowledge that you're correct about this, and that Zimmerman committed murder - but the fact of the matter is that he is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nobody has the right to take that away from him simply because they believe he's guilty.

That means every time you call him an armed stalker, every time you call him a lunatic by pointing to things in the past which you're taking out of context, every time you attempt to justify Trayvon Martin's attacking him as "self-defense", you're doing exactly what the people who are attempting to vilify Martin and exonerate Zimmerman are doing. You're attempting to convict someone in the courtroom of public opinion.

Those are facts of this case, and I don't think anyone is denying it. However, you are ignoring other facts of the case, such as the fact that Martin attacked Zimmerman and caused physical injuries to him sometime between the end of Zimmerman's call to the 911 dispatcher and when Martin was shot. Those are also verifiable facts in this case.

No, you are being dishonest. And its disappointing. If Martin defended himself against a man stalking him with a loaded pistol he was well within his right to. You asserting that Martin attacked Zimmerman is a cowardly act on your part. Martin was walking home from the store, it was Zimmerman who called the police and stalked the kid putting him in a position to have to defend himself. Youre trying to justify murder. Stop it.

Quote

Seriously?! You think the fact that Zimmerman's face and the back of his head were bleeding nothing more than an attempts to justify his firing his gun? Because that's sure what it seems like you're saying. If he was being attacked by Travyon Martin - and those injuries go a long way towards demonstrating that he was - and if he was pinned by Trayvon Martin - which eyewitness testimony seems to corroborate - then it's a little much to call those things nothing more than attempts to justify his firing his gun.

Stop being willfully ignorant. Zimmerman stalked the kid and put him in a position to defend himself. Those are the facts we have. Youre attempting to justify a murder. Just because someone defends themselves successfully against a stalker does not give a stalker free reign to murder the person they were stalking. You are proving to be a person of low morality using this line of reason. Why are you so willing to disregard the kid's right to defend himself? Its very telling about the type of person you are.

Quote

If I am being followed by someone, for whatever reason, and I get away from him (which is provable from the call to the 911 dispatcher), and then I go back and confront, then attack the person who was following me, then I just committed assault and battery, at the very least. Doesn't matter what the guy might or might not have intended to do, or whether he was armed or not.

You are proving to be intellectually and personally dishonest. You have here, admitted that the kid was being stalked. However they met up again is just speculation. One thing was clear, Zimmerman was the one doing the following as per his own and Martin's conversations. You trying to assert anything else is an attempt to justify a murder. Stop it.

Quote

No, it isn't. What Zimmerman did was not stalking under Florida law, and I suspect it would not have been considered stalking even under common law. It isn't even what you said earlier - you said that Zimmerman followed Martin, which he did. Now, maybe you're conflating the two words, but that's nobody's fault but your own.

Use whatever word you would like in order to justify the murder, I see what you are doing and it is intellectually dishonest. If you want to draw a line of semantics between stalk and follow knowing damn well its the same thing then be my guess, but we know youre being dishonest. You think the kid was thinking, "is this creepy guy following me or stalking me?" Your argument is quite silly.

Quote

Zimmerman had a concealed carry permit. That means he was legally permitted to carry a loaded firearm. Your attempt to 'prove' that he was stalking Martin with a loaded gun is, frankly, full of holes. Yes, he was following Martin (for a short time), and yes, he was carrying a gun, but you are trying to act like the two are linked, which they aren't.

Okay, you just agreed to what I was saying, but are still trying to disagree. You are intellectually dishonest. Fact is he followed the kid with a loaded pistol, and the kid ended up dead. Whether he has a right to carry a concealed pistol or not doesnt give him the right to kill innocent kids. Again your assertion that it does give him that right is intellectually dishonest.

Quote

And thus you twist the facts to try to 'prove' that Zimmerman was committing a crime. The problem is, he wasn't. He was the captain of his neighborhood watch organization. It was his job to watch for people who might be committing crimes and alert the police to it, which he did in this case. He made a stupid choice in going after Martin at all, but he didn't keep chasing Martin; he stopped when requested to by the dispatcher. That blows the whole idea that he was stalking Martin out of the water.

Where did I say Zimmerman was committing a crime. You are being intellectually dishonest. As captain of his neighborhood watch, his duty is to make sure kids like Trayvon get home safe. Instead he killed Trayvon, failing miserably at the ONE THING HE WAS SUPPOSED TO DO. He, as you said, made a stupid choice, his stupid choice resulted in a kid being shot and killed by his hand. The rest is you practicing credulity. I guess you also believe George saved that family too. Give me a break, use your brain and stop being intellectually dishonest.

Quote

Unless Zimmerman had Martin trapped, or unless he was actually shooting at Martin, Martin had the obligation to escape - not to attack. If you attack someone who's not attacking you, even if they happen to be armed, then it's not self-defense. It's assault and battery. Trying to retroactively justify Martin's attack on Zimmerman by the fact that Zimmerman was armed is an example of both confirmation bias and circular reasoning.

Another case of being intellectually dishonest. Is this something you practice at? So look how dumb your argument is; Martin has to wait until Zimmerman is shooting at him or he's trapped in order to defend himself. Any smart person (which you are proving not to be) knows that at that point its too late. I cant even believe you would suggest such stupidity. READ THE DAMN LAW THEN APOLOGIZE FOR YOUR NONSENSE http://www.husseinandwebber.com/florida-law-self-defense-use-of-force.html Trayvon Martin had the right to defend himself. Period. You are being intellectually and otherwise dishonest suggesting that he didnt and you should search within yourself to determine why youre doing it. Its an ugly side of you.

Quote

I'm getting more than a little tired of this "don't make the dead kid into the guilty party" line you keep dishing out. Because I'm not making him into the guilty party. I'm saying that they both made stupid choices, and Martin was killed as a result. I realize that's not what you want to hear - you want people to acknowledge that you're correct about this, and that Zimmerman committed murder - but the fact of the matter is that he is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nobody has the right to take that away from him simply because they believe he's guilty.

Youre being intellectually dishonest again. I dont care what youre tired of, I'm tired of "people" vilifying this kid because they have some insecurities about young black males that allows them to accept murders like these as alright. The fact that you cant even understand that whether or not Zimmerman did it was not on trial. Thats a known fact. What was on trial was whether he was justified in his murder. You apparently are of the crowd that thinks it is okay to stalk and murder young black kids. I am of the crowd that thinks if you stalk and kill ANYONE (not in the act of a crime) you have committed a crime and deserve to be in jail. Even if it was due to you making bad decisions and didnt originally have the intentions of killing, you still killed an innocent person and deserve to be locked up. Anything else and you are attempting to justify a murder.

Quote

That means every time you call him an armed stalker, every time you call him a lunatic by pointing to things in the past which you're taking out of context, every time you attempt to justify Trayvon Martin's attacking him as "self-defense", you're doing exactly what the people who are attempting to vilify Martin and exonerate Zimmerman are doing. You're attempting to convict someone in the courtroom of public opinion.

No. Again, you are being intellectually dishonest. Zimmerman admitted to stalking and killing Martin. I am not blaming the victim here, the victim is dead. I am on the side of justice, you are regretfully on the side of murder...and attempting to justify it and its sickening.

Furthermore, what should the kid have done? I keep hearing and seeing dishonest people talk about the mistakes he made, but NEVER not once has anyone suggested a reasonable different response for him. And of course ALL of them suggest he should be submissive, which of course is a holdover from Jim Crow/slavery times.

I suggested a course of action TM could have, and perhaps should have, taken above. It would be neither aggressive nor submissive. He could have gone home.

I have trouble thinking about a good outcome of confronting someone "stalking" someone, in the situation described in the trial testimony. There is likely to be a confrontation in any case. What could have possibly led TM to believe that the crazy ass cracker following him wasn't armed? I would have assumed he was.

I suggested a course of action TM could have, and perhaps should have, taken above. It would be neither aggressive nor submissive. He could have gone home.

I have trouble thinking about a good outcome of confronting someone "stalking" someone, in the situation described in the trial testimony. There is likely to be a confrontation in any case. What could have possibly led TM to believe that the crazy ass cracker following him wasn't armed? I would have assumed he was.

Odin, King of the Gods

Hate to be captain obvious, but thats what he was doing when the armed assailant started stalking him. Remember? Armed or not, he has a right as per the FL law I linked to, to defend himself.

So, you have not provided an answer, instead simply stated that he should do exactly what he was doing when he was stalked and murdered.

Hate to be captain obvious, but thats what he was doing when the armed assailant started stalking him. Remember? Armed or not, he has a right as per the FL law I linked to, to defend himself.

So, you have not provided an answer, instead simply stated that he should do exactly what he was doing when he was stalked and murdered.

Sorry, but it's impossible to have any meaningful conversation with you. Based on the only testimony we have at this point, he was headed home, but decided to abort that plan and confront an armed stalker. According to testimony, he was tailed, not stalked. He was shot in self-defense, not murdered. You have absolutely no basis for your position.

So, I'll ask you directly. It you were TM, but with your brain, would you not have assumed GZ was armed? Would that realization not have made you want to go to a safe haven, rather than confront an armed stalker? I would have wanted to get away, as fast as possible.

Youre doing exactly what I said, trying to defend a murder and its unbecoming of you.

WWGHA is dedicated to helping people who believe something without evidence. Clearly there was no murder. Why do you insist on saying there was? Did you not hear the juror who said that there simply was not the evidence to convict? Or perhaps your prejudice trumps that?

I ask you to address the social causes from the start of the incident to the verdict, not just shout because you don't like the result.

I cannot imagine that you would want a justice system that is based on a popular vote based upon the reports of a hysterical media. Did you get so wound up about O J Simpson?

If you read what I have written instead of imagining what I have written, you will see that my point is that young blacks males are distrusted. You will note an earlier post that asks "if Martin had been a middle-aged white woman, would this have ever happened?" The answer is clearly "No." But there is probably a reason for that, and I gave a few.

It is not the justice system that is broken; the justice system reflects society. It is society that is broken. That's what I said.

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Sorry, but it's impossible to have any meaningful conversation with you. Based on the only testimony we have at this point, he was headed home, but decided to abort that plan and confront an armed stalker. According to testimony, he was tailed, not stalked. He was shot in self-defense, not murdered. You have absolutely no basis for your position.

So, I'll ask you directly. It you were TM, but with your brain, would you not have assumed GZ was armed? Would that realization not have made you want to go to a safe haven, rather than confront an armed stalker? I would have wanted to get away, as fast as possible.

Odin, King of the Gods

Youre proving to be a deliberately ignorant as well. The kid was being stalked by an armed assailant when he was walking home (aka doing what you said he should do). What your train (lack) of thought does is let the armed assailant off the hook, and suggest a Jim Crow/slavery course of action for Martin. Well, based upon FL law, Martin had a right to defend himself.

Also using MY brain in Martin's situation I defend myself whether he has a weapon or not, but I defend myself even with more ferocity if I think he has a weapon or I know he has a weapon. What I dont do is lead him to my home where my little sisters are at, where my mother is at. I do my best to not allow him to use his weapon on me and I get to a place where I can see what he is doing so I dont get shot in the back and I have a fighting chance to come out of this alive.

You think he should just be the victim and not stand up for himself or lead an armed assailant to where his family is. Two dumb moves.

Youre doing exactly what I said, trying to defend a murder and its unbecoming of you.

WWGHA is dedicated to helping people who believe something without evidence. Clearly there was no murder. Why do you insist on saying there was? Did you not hear the juror who said that there simply was not the evidence to convict? Or perhaps your prejudice trumps that?

I ask you to address the social causes from the start of the incident to the verdict, not just shout because you don't like the result.

I cannot imagine that you would want a justice system that is based on a popular vote based upon the reports of a hysterical media. Did you get so wound up about O J Simpson?

If you read what I have written instead of imagining what I have written, you will see that my point is that young blacks males are distrusted. You will note an earlier post that asks "if Martin had been a middle-aged white woman, would this have ever happened?" The answer is clearly "No." But there is probably a reason for that, and I gave a few.

It is not the justice system that is broken; the justice system reflects society. It is society that is broken. That's what I said.

Why would you assume what side I "was on" in the OJ trial (as if people must pick sides)? What does that say about you? I see your true colors grey, very clearly.

There is a difference in the Zimmerman and Simpson trials, one that klansmen people like yourself seem to either ignore or are incapable of grasping. The OJ trial was a trial to determine if OJ committed the murders. Read that again and let it sink into your simple brain. The Zimmerman trial has no such debate. Zimmerman killed the kid. That was established before the trial. Read it again, let it sink into your simple brain. What ACTUALLY was on trial in the Zimmerman case is whether it was okay to murder the kid. The fact that you liken this to the OJ trial simply reveals your hood and robe for all to see.

Get it? Do I need to repeat it to make it more clear? Or is that peanut of yours working?

Yes, the justice system is broken. Thats for another thread. Society is broken as well. But when the justice system knows who the murderer is, knows the victim was an innocent kid, and lets the murderer walk free, its safe to say the system is broken. Your acceptance of a bigoted view being the reason Zimmerman got off is quite frankly disgusting.

Okay, let's all simmer down here and stop with the name calling. You are all smart enough to make your arguments without trying to make the other guy feel bad or look stupid. Calling names is not a rational argument.

Carry on.

This is what the whole nation is doing. Calling names. Making it racial. Making it political. And the media rakes in the bucks.

Logged

It doesn't make sense to let go of something you've had for so long. But it also doesn't make sense to hold on when there's actually nothing there.

There wasn't evidence to convict because the jury was constrained by the judge in the method of how the jury could come to the conclusion of the findings. Based on such constriction there were really only two options posed to them: not guilty and or they can't make a final decision. (hung jury) Guilty seemed to be taken off the table based on those restrictions.

And also, there were more than one juror. You're speaking about one juror. Four of the six jurors stated that the one juror who first spoke after the trial did not represent them in any way. From my understanding, most of them felt he deserved jail time but they couldn't rule that way based on the judges orders based on the Stand Your Ground law itself.

Also, if the people are the Justice system, then how exactly can't it be broken? If the people can, so can the things they create and implement.

Oh, and many many MANY people create false statistics. Not saying your statistics are false but false ones do exist. And others manipulated. And the black society is portrayed as menacing because many white people portray them that way. Sadly, so do some black people.

Isn't it ironic that 30-40 years ago in the US whites were portrayed as menacing and now it's reversed; mainly because those same white people and their offspring etc., have propagandi'd (?) It over the years.

The KKK, white nationalist groups, storm front.org, and a good deal of the Republicans and Tea Party caucuses.

It's funny: the Republicans freed the slaves and now they're trying to enslave them once again.

If social media had existed at that time I can only imagine the uproars in the threads. The public was also divided among racial lines then. But it was different. The police did such a flagrant job of framing a guilty man that he was sympathetic. I was among those who thought he was not guilty. (But I had a personal connection to OJ. My mom's uncle was his trainer at USC.) Right up until I saw his reaction to the verdict. His face was not that of a man who was relieved to be exonerated of the murder of the mother of his children, it was the face of a man who was pleased that he got away with it.

Quote

It is not the justice system that is broken; the justice system reflects society. It is society that is broken. That's what I said.

Society is indeed broken. At least here in the US. It gets worse every year. But this isn't the thread to get in to it.

« Last Edit: July 26, 2013, 08:04:54 PM by LoriPinkAngel »

Logged

It doesn't make sense to let go of something you've had for so long. But it also doesn't make sense to hold on when there's actually nothing there.

So, I get this is a topic people get passionate about. And it is infuriating when the other guy just. refuses. to. acknowledge. that. you. are. right. I've been there. But let's please keep it civil and make arguments with facts and rationality and not insults, please. If you cannot make a post cooly, then get up from your computer, have a drink of water and go outside and get some air for a little while. This applies to all parties involved. Thanks.

So, I get this is a topic people get passionate about. And it is infuriating when the other guy just. refuses. to. acknowledge. that. you. are. right. I've been there. But let's please keep it civil and make arguments with facts and rationality and not insults, please. If you cannot make a post cooly, then get up from your computer, have a drink of water and go outside and get some air for a little while. This applies to all parties involved. Thanks.

I if may interject, as a pro-gun advocate?

Spit, stop being a dick.

Gawd, he's right in that only a moron would carry an empty gun. Nitpickers, as they say.

No, you are being dishonest. And its disappointing. If Martin defended himself against a man stalking him with a loaded pistol he was well within his right to. You asserting that Martin attacked Zimmerman is a cowardly act on your part. Martin was walking home from the store, it was Zimmerman who called the police and stalked the kid putting him in a position to have to defend himself. Youre trying to justify murder. Stop it.

No, he wasn't within his rights, because even if Zimmerman were actually stalking him, that isn't an imminent use of force. I realize that people can feel threatened if someone is following them around, but that doesn't give them the right to turn around and attack the person following them. And that's what you're claiming here.

Quote from: The Gawd

Stop being willfully ignorant. Zimmerman stalked the kid and put him in a position to defend himself. Those are the facts we have.

Except that Zimmerman did not stalk Martin. He followed him on his own initiative until the dispatcher told him not to, at which point he stopped following Martin. That is not putting him (Martin) in a position to defend himself, because self-defense does not permit you to attack someone merely for following you, no matter what it looks like to the person being followed. It doesn't matter whether one feels like it's stalking, or even if one feels threatened by it, because it isn't the use of force or even the imminent use of force. Cause for alarm, sure. Cause to call the police, most assuredly. Cause to try to beat up the person following you and claim it was self-defense? No way.

Quote from: The Gawd

Youre attempting to justify a murder. Just because someone defends themselves successfully against a stalker does not give a stalker free reign to murder the person they were stalking. You are proving to be a person of low morality using this line of reason. Why are you so willing to disregard the kid's right to defend himself? Its very telling about the type of person you are.

You don't have the right to attack someone merely for following you. Attacking someone in self-defense does not apply merely for following someone around. So even if your narrative were correct and Zimmerman was actually stalking Martin, Martin did not have any business confronting and attacking him just for that. Not unless he had reason to believe that Zimmerman was about to attack him.

Quote from: The Gawd

You are proving to be intellectually and personally dishonest. You have here, admitted that the kid was being stalked.

This is untrue. I specifically contested your declaration that he was being stalked several times in the post you're quoting. What I said was that Zimmerman followed him, but following someone is not the same thing as stalking them. Stalking has a specific legal definition which has to be met, and I'm pretty sure that simply following someone, or even chasing them, doesn't meet that definition.

Quote from: The Gawd

However they met up again is just speculation. One thing was clear, Zimmerman was the one doing the following as per his own and Martin's conversations. You trying to assert anything else is an attempt to justify a murder. Stop it.

Okay, I'll grant that we can't be exactly sure what happened after Zimmerman got off the phone with the 911 dispatcher. But claiming that I'm therefore trying to justify a murder is both wrong and insulting - especially when you say that trying to assert anything else is doing that.

Quote from: The Gawd

Use whatever word you would like in order to justify the murder, I see what you are doing and it is intellectually dishonest. If you want to draw a line of semantics between stalk and follow knowing damn well its the same thing then be my guess, but we know youre being dishonest. You think the kid was thinking, "is this creepy guy following me or stalking me?" Your argument is quite silly.

No, you don't see. You're too stuck on the idea that you're right and thus someone who disagrees with you about it is wrong. And you're interpreting everything that's said here through that lens. I mean, you're actually claiming that if one person follows another, that it's actually stalking and that the person being 'stalked' has the right to attack the 'stalker' to defend themselves, simply because they think they're being stalked and threatened. And that is patently ridiculous. There is no way to realistically justify attacking someone just because they're following you, especially if they haven't done anything besides follow you (and call someone on the phone).

Quote from: The Gawd

Okay, you just agreed to what I was saying, but are still trying to disagree. You are intellectually dishonest. Fact is he followed the kid with a loaded pistol, and the kid ended up dead. Whether he has a right to carry a concealed pistol or not doesnt give him the right to kill innocent kids. Again your assertion that it does give him that right is intellectually dishonest.

Presumption of innocence, remember? You can't simply say, "Zimmerman had a loaded gun, Martin wasn't doing anything wrong, therefore Zimmerman committed murder". That presumes that Zimmerman was guilty. The mere fact that he had a loaded gun does not remove his presumption of innocence. You have to actually prove that Zimmerman committed murder beyond a reasonable doubt, you can't simply infer it as you've been doing. Also, your statement that I'm asserting that Zimmerman had the right to kill innocent kids is another untruth. I never said any such thing, nor would I. From the context of the rest of your post, this accusation appears to be based on your dichotomy that someone is either on your side, or they're on the other side. As you call it, the side of justice and the side of murder. Well, it isn't quite that cut and dried.

Quote from: The Gawd

Where did I say Zimmerman was committing a crime. You are being intellectually dishonest.

When you say that Zimmerman committed murder, you're saying that he committed a crime, because murder is a crime. If you didn't mean it that way, then how did you mean it? And if you don't think he committed a crime, then why are we having this discussion? I mean, what was the point of this statement? You've made no bones about the fact that you think Zimmerman should have gone to prison. Well, they don't put people in prison unless they're convicted of a crime serious enough to warrant a prison sentence.

Quote from: The Gawd

As captain of his neighborhood watch, his duty is to make sure kids like Trayvon get home safe.

This is an oversimplification of what a neighborhood watch actually does (and, in fact, the responsibilities of a neighborhood watch vary greatly even from city to city, let alone state to state). But now I think I'm starting to understand why you're reacting as you are.

Quote from: The Gawd

Instead he killed Trayvon, failing miserably at the ONE THING HE WAS SUPPOSED TO DO. He, as you said, made a stupid choice, his stupid choice resulted in a kid being shot and killed by his hand. The rest is you practicing credulity. I guess you also believe George saved that family too. Give me a break, use your brain and stop being intellectually dishonest.

You really need to stop with the insults and accusations. It's not helping your case at all, and it's making it unnecessarily difficult for me to respond civilly to you. The first thing you need to do is understand that accusing me of intellectual dishonesty (not to mention everything else) is not going to fly unless you can show real instances of it. And you're not. Not only are you taking what I say out of context, a lot of times you're actually accusing me of things that are not true and not supported by anything I said. Such as your repeated accusation that I'm trying to "justify Martin's murder", or your statement that I was asserting that Zimmerman had the right to kill innocent kids.

Quote from: The Gawd

Another case of being intellectually dishonest. Is this something you practice at? So look how dumb your argument is; Martin has to wait until Zimmerman is shooting at him or he's trapped in order to defend himself.

That isn't what I said. This is another instance of you misrepresenting what I say in order to pass me off as intellectually dishonest. I said that his duty was to escape - and that attacking someone who isn't attacking you is not self-defense.

Quote from: The Gawd

Any smart person (which you are proving not to be)

This is totally uncalled for. If you cannot leave out the insults, then you have no business being involved in this discussion to begin with.

You need to read that article yourself before you start trying to lecture me about it. From the very article you linked:

"Under Section 776.012, Florida Statutes (Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Law), a person is justified in the use of non-deadly force in self-defense where the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force." I don't think anyone can possibly define being followed as an "imminent use of unlawful force". Now, it's true that there's no legal duty to retreat, but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea. I hope you can agree that if Martin had retreated instead of attacking, that he would probably still be alive today. Which is why I'm saying that he made a stupid decision.

Quote from: The Gawd

Trayvon Martin had the right to defend himself. Period. You are being intellectually and otherwise dishonest suggesting that he didnt and you should search within yourself to determine why youre doing it. Its an ugly side of you.

What he did not have the right to do was attack because Zimmerman was following him for a time. If Zimmerman had attacked him, or if there had been reasonable cause to believe that such an attack was imminent, then it would have been a different story. But under the circumstances, I don't think anyone can show that that's the case - and thus the reasonable doubt standard holds.

As far as your comment about this so-called "ugly side" of me, that's all predicated on your belief that I'm being intellectually dishonest. However, you're consistently making that accusation based on misrepresentations of what I'm saying and things that weren't true to begin with. And that undercuts your argument rather thoroughly.

[

Quote from: The Gawd

Youre being intellectually dishonest again. I dont care what youre tired of, I'm tired of "people" vilifying this kid because they have some insecurities about young black males that allows them to accept murders like these as alright.

And what makes you think that I am one of those people? I really do not appreciate being treated like that, especially when I've actually criticized those viewpoints - in this very thread, no less - for being factually wrong. What it makes me think is that you're not really taking the time to read what I'm saying; you're just thinking that I'm another person trying to pin the blame on Trayvon Martin, and responding accordingly.

Quote from: The Gawd

The fact that you cant even understand that whether or not Zimmerman did it was not on trial. Thats a known fact.

And when did I ever say anything that suggested that this was in doubt? This is what I'm talking about - you're responding to what you think I'm writing rather than what I am writing, and thus you're leveling accusations against me that aren't supported by anything I've actually been saying.

Quote from: The Gawd

What was on trial was whether he was justified in his murder. You apparently are of the crowd that thinks it is okay to stalk and murder young black kids. I am of the crowd that thinks if you stalk and kill ANYONE (not in the act of a crime) you have committed a crime and deserve to be in jail.

This is a clear demonstration that you aren't thinking clearly here, otherwise you wouldn't be presenting this as a dichotomy. There are more positions in this situation than "it's okay to stalk and murder young black kids" and "if you stalk and kill anyone (not in the act of a crime) you have committed a crime and deserve to be in jail". For example, "it was a stupid pointless tragedy, both of them made stupid choices, and Martin died as a result", which is my position. The fact that you apparently think it's one or the other suggests you are not thinking rationally about the subject.

Quote from: The Gawd

Even if it was due to you making bad decisions and didnt originally have the intentions of killing, you still killed an innocent person and deserve to be locked up. Anything else and you are attempting to justify a murder.

And just what do you think "justifiable homicide" is? There are times when the act of killing someone can be legally or morally justified. Like, say, if someone is straddling you, hitting you in the face repeatedly, and causing your head to hit a concrete sidewalk. Can you honestly say that if someone were doing that to you, and you shot and killed them (or killed them in some other way), that you committed a crime and deserved to go to prison?

Quote from: The Gawd

No. Again, you are being intellectually dishonest. Zimmerman admitted to stalking and killing Martin. I am not blaming the victim here, the victim is dead. I am on the side of justice, you are regretfully on the side of murder...and attempting to justify it and its sickening.

No, he didn't admit to stalking Martin. I don't know why you keep insisting that he did. Following someone is not the same thing as stalking them, and even if there were, it doesn't give the legal justification to attack someone in self-defense for doing it because it doesn't represent an imminent use of force. Yes, he did kill Martin - after Martin started attacking him. And under Florida law - note that this is the same page you linked earlier - the use of deadly force is justified if a person believes that it is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to themselves or another. It is not just to prevent someone from committing a crime, as you seem to think it is.

I can accept that you think you're on the side of justice, but this isn't a dichotomy where either someone is on your side, or they're on the side of murder. You also don't have carte blanche in terms of your behavior here regardless of whether you're right or not. Frankly, your behavior in this post has been completely uncalled for, not to mention very provocative, and I'm very tired of having untrue accusations leveled at me simply because you think someone is either on your side or the "side of murder".

So, I get this is a topic people get passionate about. And it is infuriating when the other guy just. refuses. to. acknowledge. that. you. are. right. I've been there. But let's please keep it civil and make arguments with facts and rationality and not insults, please. If you cannot make a post cooly, then get up from your computer, have a drink of water and go outside and get some air for a little while. This applies to all parties involved. Thanks.

I if may interject, as a pro-gun advocate?

Spit, stop being a dick.

Gawd, he's right in that only a moron would carry an empty gun. Nitpickers, as they say.

So, I get this is a topic people get passionate about. And it is infuriating when the other guy just. refuses. to. acknowledge. that. you. are. right. I've been there. But let's please keep it civil and make arguments with facts and rationality and not insults, please. If you cannot make a post cooly, then get up from your computer, have a drink of water and go outside and get some air for a little while. This applies to all parties involved. Thanks.

I if may interject, as a pro-gun advocate?

Spit, stop being a dick.

Gawd, he's right in that only a moron would carry an empty gun. Nitpickers, as they say.

No, lets not make assertions.Why would it be moronic to carry an empty gun?

No, he wasn't within his rights, because even if Zimmerman were actually stalking him, that isn't an imminent use of force. I realize that people can feel threatened if someone is following them around, but that doesn't give them the right to turn around and attack the person following them. And that's what you're claiming here.

You apparently didnt read the law on self defense, in an attempt to remain willfully ignorant. But I will pull it for you again since you appear incapable of doing anything independently.

Under Section 776.012, Florida Statutes (Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Law), a person is justified in the use of non-deadly force in self-defense where the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force. There is no duty to retreat.

Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force.

As I stated before, Martin was well within his right to use self defense, your blood thirst for young kids not-withstanding. There you have the law, will you stop your pattern of ignorance and dishonesty and recognize the kid's right to defend himself. I will not go further with your ignorance until you acknowledge that.